"A Catholic lawyer has filed heresy charges against Sen. John Kerry with the Archdiocese of Boston, accusing the Democratic presidential candidate of bringing “most serious scandal to the American public” by receiving Holy Communion as a pro-choice Catholic."
first of all this makes me a little sick. It seems obvious that it is politically motivated, but are these people doing themselves more harm than good politically?
"It is one of the greatest sins you can commit."
WTF? Murder, rape, adultery, and thinking for yourself. Ticket to hell?
Just for starters, Fant, regard the source. The Times is a loony-Moonie mouthpiece with a political stance just to the left of Kublai Khan. Nonetheless, the following excerpt is a masterpiece of drollery:
Do you understand that the Catholic church has laws, and judicial processes?
You may not agree with particular laws, or particular tenets of belief. But it’s not for you to decide. The Church is perfectly within her rights to decide on both the laws and the creed, as well as the sanctions for violation of same.
Some would argue that adultery isn’t such a serious sin. In your example, I take it that you accept adultery as a serious sin, because you contrast it with “thinking for yourself,” which is apparently your understanding of a pro-choice, would-be Catholic’s process of arriving at his conclusions.
As a matter of secualr law, adultery isn’t all that serious a crime. But it’s certainly a serious sin. And whether you agree or disagree, it’s beyond cavil that the Church, not you, has the power to set that rule up and enforce it.
So, too, with abortion. There are many serious cases to be made against politicans of all stripes when their actions conflict with the teachings of the Church. For example, support of a unjust war, or support for the death penalty are clearly cases that call for attention. I don’t take issue with the first part of your OP – this action is clearly politically motivated, and I’d like to know where this “Catholic lawyer” was with his outrage when Catholic politicans support the death penalty.
But the second part of your OP is quite different. It suggests that there is an objective correct answer to abortion that conflicts with Church teaching, or that the Church position is unsustainable. While it’s obviously debatable in a secular context, in the context of a Catholic Church judicial proceeding, there is no questioning the laws of the Church.
Huh. I remember back in Social Studies in 7th grade that being Catholic actually counted against somebody’s chances to win the election. I didn’t realized times had changed that much.
I guess this speaks to my dislike for the Catholic Church, and in a much more broad sweeping way than the scope of the OP. To me, for a religion to be a “good” religion, it should strive to do what is best for its followers. The catholic church has proven time and again that it does not. I feel that this suppression of differing viewpoints in a very harsh way is reprehensible.
I disagree. The Church has always worked to do what’s best for its followers. Where you and I disagree, I suspect, is in “what’s best,” and the basis for that disagreement undoubtedly rests in what premises we accept.
You might, for example, feel the Church has failed her followers by condemning abortion – that by forcing her followers to have unwanted babies, the Church has acted in a way inimical to their best interests. But I would argue that since the abortion constitutes the murder of a human being, and since this has grave consequences for soul of the killer as well as obvious grave consequences for the murdered, the Church is acting correctly.
So it all comes down to what premise you accept. If you don’t agree that abortion imperils the soul of the abortionist, and that it’s not the murder of a human, then obviously you’re on firm groumd, and the Church’s position is deeply flawed.
But how do you propose to prove those points?
The Church is not suppressing viewpoints - just actions. It’s not a grave sin to argue that the position on abortion is wrong. It’s agrave sin to commit, or aid in the commission of, abortion. It is in the latter category that Mr. Kerry has allegedly failed, by voting in favor of pro-choice laws.
It would probably gently increase Kerry’s electability to tell the Catholic Church RTL mafia to go to hell. It won’t help him in Louisiana, I guess, but most other states with a prominent Catholic population are going to vote Kerry anyhow, and in many venues it will probably play well for him to stand up to them.
The Catholic Church is attempting to violate the US Constitution by using its power to impose a religious test on a candidate for political office. All patriotic Americans should be outraged.
The Catholic Church is not threatening the US Constitution in any way. The Church has every right to decide who may receive its sacraments. However, I find that using the sacraments to punish parishioners for their political beliefs is disturbing. Rather than harass Kerry, perhaps the Church should deny communion to those Catholics who supported Bush’s misadventure in Iraq.
Actually, all Americans familiar with the Constitution should be outraged at the state of public education in this country, to the extent it can produce persons that believe the statement offered by sqweels above.
The Constitution forbids the government from imposing a religious test on a candidate for public office. It does not and cannot prevent individual voters or private organizations from imposing such a test. You could just as cogently argue that the Church violates the Constitutution by forbidding women from becoming priests, or by requiring the recitation of the Nicean Creed during Mass. And let’s not forget how they openly display crucifixes, a religious symbol! Must be a violation of the separation of church and state!
Er, no it isn’t. Firstly, a lay member of the church has brought the charge, not the church hierarchy, and any sanction against Mr. Kerry that might eventually take place would, from a legal standpoint, only affect Mr. Kerry’s standing within the church. Last I checked, the Catholic church appeared to have given up the practice of burning heretics quite some time ago. Secondly, the church leadership apparently is under no obligation to pursue this if they choose not to:
Lastly, as others have said, this seems to be a bit of grandstanding by someone who clearly has a political axe to grind. Mr. Kerry’s stance on abortion is already well known, and I have to question whether any such action by the church would have all that much of an effect on Kerry’s electoral chances.